Pondering Questions,Looking For Feedback!

[Musicmaster]

Thank you.
I'm going to play the adversary for a minute, using Isaiah 45.
In these verses,in context 3-9, God is speaking of what he does and will do for those that are his. Holding onto the right hand of Cyrus, GOD MAKES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.

I will subdue nations b4 him
I will cause kings to open their Gates b4 him
I will go before thee, I'm your leader
I will make the crooked danger ahead be visible to you by making them straight.
I will tear down ANY barriers b4 you.
He will give from all his riches to those bc he knows our name even while in the womb.
Even to calling and placing those who DONT KNOW HIM, but he knows all,

FOR, He is the Lord and THERE IS NONE ELSE !
He want ALL to know by his works that he ALONE is the creator and THERE are no other creators ,none else.

No Satan is not a part of these,the Lord's words. GOD, however is the creator of ALLLLLLL. V7-13, he makes it plain that everything is under his control and he didn't nor does not He need permission.


Yes ,I do know that God even created the angels as well as man with the choice to choose the path to walk they WANT to walk.

Let me take it one step further not to be contensionious but Satan had zero power except what God created in Him. He cannot create ( demons, minions ect.) He can influence, use, direct, fool ect. man into a lot by mans free choice. Think rationally,where did they come from ?

I take the word exactly like it is written then if I run across something special or hard that the Lord wants me to know the Spirit leads and reveals ! Using others books,or tools isn't necessary. When the word EVERY WORD has to be broken down by lexicon, Strongs, ect. then you are stopping the Spirit from serving his purpose in our lives.

D3, you brought up some interesting points I'd like to address, if I may.

First, let's look at that key verse:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

Granted, translation is a tricky business much of the time. When we look at that verse carefully, the Lord is quoted, in relation to evil, in the present tense, not past tense, in that He 'created" evil in His creative work. That is an inference that people must inject into the text rather than to read it for what it says.

Now, let's ask another question: Does this verse state, or even imply, that God is creating evil on the fly...evil that doesn't exist until the present time?

Again, that is a stretch that simply stresses the text so far beyond its stated meaning, and even its nuances, that only our imagination can concoct some of the stuff people have blamed God for in this fallen world of ours.

I will even go so far as to say that you and I can do exactly what the Lord said when He stated, "...I make peace, and create evil..."

You and I can MAKE peace, and CREATE evil (mayhem, chaos, distress, misery, injury and calamity) in given situations, but that doesn't imply that we created evil from its inception. So, my question to others who would push this beyond its stated meaning, why assume into the text what isn't there?

You're right. The Spirit is the One who confirms and instructs us (1 John 2:27). However, the Spirt has also used such tools as lexicons to reveal meaning and truth to many, many people through the ages. After all, the Lord used a man such as the pharaoh to accomplish His purposes and to show the world a demonstration of His power. He uses organized religion to accomplish His purposes. Nothing earth shaking here, just pointing out that dare we write off any and all possible avenues of things and people the Lord can use to convey His absolute truth, and we are manipulators and deniers of what He may otherwise have chosen as the instruments of His communications to us. Besides, scholarship isn't a stranger to His massive trove of tools He may use to get through to us:

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:...

When you asked, "...where did they come from?" I'm left wondering if you are referring to Satan's intelligence, and thus in his ability to so effectively fool men into doing his will? Like you said, it all came from God, but for anyone to say that Satan's use of what was given to Him for evil purposes is therefore an avenue for blaming God for its inception, such as the choice to use what God had given to Him to deceive and destroy, that's where the problem rests. You can loan your car to one of your children, and they go out and intentionally run over a pedestrian, that doesn't make you the author of that act, the evil of that act, nor the one to blame for its passing. You equipped the kid with what he/she needed to accomplish the task, but that doesn't place the blame for creating the evil that child concocted in the mind. Empowerment doesn't equate to abuses of what was given.

God, on the other hand, brings calamity and destruction upon nations and people, but that doesn't make Him the creator of evil at its inception. (Isaiah 45:7). I just watched the Harbinger last night in the theater. Kahn deals with this topic head-on, and in no way can one legitimately tie the string of blame to God's big toe the blame for the creation of all evil at its inception when we see Him bringing America under judgement and calamity for her evils.

So, in the final analysis, I'm still left wondering how anyone can draw parallels in the manner you appear to have done, even when playing the advocate role. It doesn't jive. The connections simply aren't there, even in the language of the scripture passages in chapter 45. The fact that He was speaking present tense alone casts upon the text the very strong ties necessary for us to understand that, yes, the Lord does create evil (calamities and harm) against nations and individuals, but ultimately, the Lord has taken full responsibility for the existence of sin and evil when He shed His own Blood on that cross. He knew it was all coming, but that's not reason to blame Him for having created the evil that arose from free moral agency.

I hope this brings into sharper focus the text for what it says.

MM

 

[D3vot3d2G0d]

Thank you ,MM
Your reply was concise and informative.

On the other had we are left with the question of evils origin.

God is much more than we THINK him to be.
Look at the early battles of Israel against the inhabitants of the land. GOD TOLD them many times to cut the ppl down even to EVERY hoof nothing could be left standing, not man, woman, child, nor animal. He created the LOF for the devil and his angels.

It is not a blame game, just a question, looking for its answer.

There IS ONLY GOD, and none else as in Greek mythology, or pagan worship. He existed before time was created for man, the Ancient Of Days,Alpha and Omega.

We do not have a time as to when God created the angels,so it's impossible to gage information about their creation.
We do know that SIN entered Lucifer, be it pride , arrogance, ect, resulting in his expulsion from heaven to earth.

God had and has a plan for this earth but we walk in his timeline, not our own.

God has traits that we can see in his word, He laughs, He repents, He can become angry and enraged, he has wrath, He has unbelievable love, on and on it can go.

Free will cannot be accountable for sin and evil, for first the thought must be..............and the heart must conceive.

 

[Musicmaster]

Thank you ,MM
Your reply was concise and informative.

On the other had we are left with the question of evils origin.

God is much more than we THINK him to be.
Look at the early battles of Israel against the inhabitants of the land. GOD TOLD them many times to cut the ppl down even to EVERY hoof nothing could be left standing, not man, woman, child, nor animal. He created the LOF for the devil and his angels.

It is not a blame game, just a question, looking for its answer.

There IS ONLY GOD, and none else as in Greek mythology, or pagan worship. He existed before time was created for man, the Ancient Of Days,Alpha and Omega.

We do not have a time as to when God created the angels,so it's impossible to gage information about their creation.
We do know that SIN entered Lucifer, be it pride , arrogance, ect, resulting in his expulsion from heaven to earth.

God had and has a plan for this earth but we walk in his timeline, not our own.

God has traits that we can see in his word, He laughs, He repents, He can become angry and enraged, he has wrath, He has unbelievable love, on and on it can go.

Free will cannot be accountable for sin and evil, for first the thought must be..............and the heart must conceive.

D3, your question elicits thought. How about this: When we read scripture, where was evil first mentioned? Was it not in the heart of the angel of light, Satan?

In circles of philosophy, which is the pursuit of truth, what has been surmised, based upon what is actually told to us in the inspired word of God, is that Satan originally allowed something to take root and sprout in his inner thoughts about his own beauty and power given to him. He obviously knew that there was none greater than God, so he declared that he would be AS God.

The price of freedom, as can be seen originating from a creature that had that very freedom, is the choice to do what is right, or to do what is wrong. That was the danger the Lord knew existed, and rather than to clamp down on the angels with the iron fist of control as to whether they could choose to do evil or not, the Lord gave to them total freedom.

Now, if I may, let me observe for you the sheer wisdom behind the Lord's choice to allow total freedom in His creation. In this freedom, each creature has, does and will exhibit and live out the choices between seeking righteousness, or seeking self-gratification and fulfillment. It's a grand test of each creature. Any king on this earth would want servants who were tested and true, because otherwise he could end up with a knife in his back, or poison in his drink. The Lord, through the use of freedom and free moral agency, has chosen to allow each creature to pass through this veil of testing, with Him separating them all out in the end as to who will be in His Kingdom, and who will not. That is perfect justice.

In the midst of it all, and even before it was all set in motion, we're told that Christ was slain from the foundations of the world:

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This shows to us that the Lord took responsibility for bringing about a level of freedom that He knew would result in some, or most, of His creatures choosing rebellion and sin (evil). Evil and sin can be defined at a very basic level, and that being disobedience. How can disobedience exist apart from freedom? Well, it can't, with which I'm sure we can both agree.

So, when you say that evil cannot arise from freedom, what other origin is there apart from blaming the Lord Most High, and that He intentionally created it? That is a serious charge, if that is what you contending, and I would simply have to call you out on the carpet on that, calling upon you to defend that accusation...if you can. BTW, this is not aimed only at you. This is a charge I have heard from others through the years, asking that they too defend that belief, and to this day, I have yet to hear anything above the level of emotional argumentation and philosophical meandering that led to no real answers that are verifiable within scripture, nor philosophically sound.

If one is going to say that the Lord created the thought and feel of pride in Satan, from which the sin took root, then I'd simply have to ask where that is stated, because apart from an actual statement lending credible foundation for such a belief, it remains nothing more than human invention.

If anything, the Lord may have given to Satan a level of beauty that was so strikingly and profoundly above any others in Heaven that, well, the distinction was vast enough that Satan did indeed see himself as quite set apart from all the others of God's creation, but that does not excuse the path Satan chose of his own free will. You see, there is only freedom or bondage when it comes to moral agency. There's nothing in between. It's not shades of gray, unless someone can show such from scripture. Satan could have done to the Lord, and confessed the turmoil within himself, seeking counsel, but, instead, he chose to feed that pride, which led to his rebellion and to seek equality with his Creator.

See? Choice. Was it forced? Not by any measure we can ascertain from scripture.

MM

 

[Lanolin]

I don't think Satan chose to seek equality with his Creator, he wanted MORE than equality, he wanted to be ABOVE the Creator.

Of course, that was silly, as nobody can be higher than God. But he tries.

 

[Lanolin]

Satan is 'the god of this world' and many do worship him, but they are deceived.

Jesus sits at the right hand of God the Father so it can be said he has equality with God. Note they are ruling together. And as we believers are his co-heirs we also get a seat.

 

[crossnote]

If God created moral evil how would He be able to judge our sin?

 

[Lanolin]

my brain is going to explode from all the moral dilemmas posed in this thread
I am not God so how can I answer them? lol

Proverbs 18:21
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof

I'm surmising that in the beginning, just as it says in the Bible there were two kinds of trees in the garden. One kind, the tree of life had fruit good for food, that humans could FREELY eat and the other, had fruit that had knowledge of good and evil in it that humans were told NOT to eat.

But they did anyway.

I don't think anyone should blame God for planting these trees in the garden. But, rather, we need to blame ourselves for disobeying God when He told us not to eat it from the forbidden one.

But thats the human condition isn't it. Thankfully, we have someone willing to pay the price for us with His life on the cross. With His forgiveness, we can then know better to make good choices right? To choose to eat from the tree of life.

 

[D3vot3d2G0d]

D3, your question elicits thought. How about this: When we read scripture, where was evil first mentioned? Was it not in the heart of the angel of light, Satan?

In circles of philosophy, which is the pursuit of truth, what has been surmised, based upon what is actually told to us in the inspired word of God, is that Satan originally allowed something to take root and sprout in his inner thoughts about his own beauty and power given to him. He obviously knew that there was none greater than God, so he declared that he would be AS God.

The price of freedom, as can be seen originating from a creature that had that very freedom, is the choice to do what is right, or to do what is wrong. That was the danger the Lord knew existed, and rather than to clamp down on the angels with the iron fist of control as to whether they could choose to do evil or not, the Lord gave to them total freedom.

Now, if I may, let me observe for you the sheer wisdom behind the Lord's choice to allow total freedom in His creation. In this freedom, each creature has, does and will exhibit and live out the choices between seeking righteousness, or seeking self-gratification and fulfillment. It's a grand test of each creature. Any king on this earth would want servants who were tested and true, because otherwise he could end up with a knife in his back, or poison in his drink. The Lord, through the use of freedom and free moral agency, has chosen to allow each creature to pass through this veil of testing, with Him separating them all out in the end as to who will be in His Kingdom, and who will not. That is perfect justice.

In the midst of it all, and even before it was all set in motion, we're told that Christ was slain from the foundations of the world:

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This shows to us that the Lord took responsibility for bringing about a level of freedom that He knew would result in some, or most, of His creatures choosing rebellion and sin (evil). Evil and sin can be defined at a very basic level, and that being disobedience. How can disobedience exist apart from freedom? Well, it can't, with which I'm sure we can both agree.

So, when you say that evil cannot arise from freedom, what other origin is there apart from blaming the Lord Most High, and that He intentionally created it? That is a serious charge, if that is what you contending, and I would simply have to call you out on the carpet on that, calling upon you to defend that accusation...if you can. BTW, this is not aimed only at you. This is a charge I have heard from others through the years, asking that they too defend that belief, and to this day, I have yet to hear anything above the level of emotional argumentation and philosophical meandering that led to no real answers that are verifiable within scripture, nor philosophically sound.

If one is going to say that the Lord created the thought and feel of pride in Satan, from which the sin took root, then I'd simply have to ask where that is stated, because apart from an actual statement lending credible foundation for such a belief, it remains nothing more than human invention.

If anything, the Lord may have given to Satan a level of beauty that was so strikingly and profoundly above any others in Heaven that, well, the distinction was vast enough that Satan did indeed see himself as quite set apart from all the others of God's creation, but that does not excuse the path Satan chose of his own free will. You see, there is only freedom or bondage when it comes to moral agency. There's nothing in between. It's not shades of gray, unless someone can show such from scripture. Satan could have done to the Lord, and confessed the turmoil within himself, seeking counsel, but, instead, he chose to feed that pride, which led to his rebellion and to seek equality with his Creator.

See? Choice. Was it forced? Not by any measure we can ascertain from scripture.

MM

Thank you MM,
You have reached the answer I sought.
God created us knowing that one terrible flaw would define our path ,our choices,even the angels were given this freedom.

As you've so eloquently stated there is ONLY freedom or bondage. Two options that caused a war in heaven, the fall of mankind, the slaying of the lamb of God for a propitiation for sins and a reckoning between all that is good or evil !

I concur with this awesome post that all should read.

Without choice there is no freedom !
Evil exist because as you say,God wants a tested and proven ppl.

It almost makes you feel sorry that God chose to do it this way. I am certainly thankful he is longsuffering and compassionate. There is nothing he has NOT prepared for before he created.

Thank you for your patience and for the breaking of the word of God with courtesy and kindness.

Blessings.

 

[Musicmaster]

We can pursue this even further (and for those whose heads are exploding over this, you may want to ignore this):

How does one create what is not substantive? Evil is not some sort of goo that could have been created. It's s state of being born from choice(s).

God is good. Evil is the antithesis to God and His goodness. Satan was not seeking to bring glory to God, but rather to become LIKE God. That is a sentiment of theft, for it is an attempt to rob God of the total glorification He deserves, and to elevate self to sharing in His Glory.

Look at Isaiah 45:7 again: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

Looking at that verse, we see the contrasts, such as light in relation to darkness, and peace in relation to evil. Folks, moral evil is not the contrast to peace. Calamity is a contrast to peace, not moral evil. Where it is true that moral evil can and does bring about calamity and harm, in and of itself, it is not the antithesis to peace, it is the antithesis to good.

I hope that brings even a more simple breakdown of this topic in relation to the KJV that, unfortunately, used 'evil' in their translation rather than what the grammatical and contextual strengths would and should point us toward.

MM

 

[D3vot3d2G0d]

Can a person be a sovereign citizen and recognize only the sovereigntyof God.?

Titus 3:1/2 ( context) good letter on order.
Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to EVERY good work,
Rms 12:16-19...context
18. IF IT be POSSIBLE,as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with ALL men.

R Ms. 13:1-8 We hear this interpertated as the Government, but what if the government is evil and abusive ignoring civil rights

Mt.22:21 . ctx. 18-24
They say unto him,Caesars. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things of God's.

The 1st.Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that EVERYONE in the UNITED STATES has the right to practice his or her own religion, or none at all.

Then why therefore does the U.S. call ppl like at WACO and sovereign citizenship movement ......DOMESTIC TERRORIST?


The 1st. clause in the Bill of Rights states that " Congess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
This clause of the First Amendment often is interpreted to require separation of church and state.

 

[BibleLover]

Can a person be a sovereign citizen and recognize only the sovereigntyof God.?

Titus 3:1/2 ( context) good letter on order.
Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to EVERY good work,
Rms 12:16-19...context
18. IF IT be POSSIBLE,as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with ALL men.

R Ms. 13:1-8 We hear this interpertated as the Government, but what if the government is evil and abusive ignoring civil rights

Mt.22:21 . ctx. 18-24
They say unto him,Caesars. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things of God's.

The 1st.Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that EVERYONE in the UNITED STATES has the right to practice his or her own religion, or none at all.

Then why therefore does the U.S. call ppl like at WACO and sovereign citizenship movement ......DOMESTIC TERRORIST?


The 1st. clause in the Bill of Rights states that " Congess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
This clause of the First Amendment often is interpreted to require separation of church and state.

There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. The US constitution is the ultimate representation of sovereignty. The idea of sovereign citizenry is a representation of anarchy because it makes each citizen a de facto nation subject to no outside political influences. The sovereign citizen movement is a political movement, not a religious one, so the 1st Amendment religious protections don't apply. Any political movement that advocates or actively seeks the dissolution of the constitutionally governed United States is considered seditious and potentially terroristic.

 

[Major]

Can a person be a sovereign citizen and recognize only the sovereigntyof God.?

Titus 3:1/2 ( context) good letter on order.
Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to EVERY good work,
Rms 12:16-19...context
18. IF IT be POSSIBLE,as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with ALL men.

R Ms. 13:1-8 We hear this interpertated as the Government, but what if the government is evil and abusive ignoring civil rights

Mt.22:21 . ctx. 18-24
They say unto him,Caesars. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things of God's.

The 1st.Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that EVERYONE in the UNITED STATES has the right to practice his or her own religion, or none at all.

Then why therefore does the U.S. call ppl like at WACO and sovereign citizenship movement ......DOMESTIC TERRORIST?


The 1st. clause in the Bill of Rights states that " Congess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
This clause of the First Amendment often is interpreted to require separation of church and state.

Just to be clear...........There is no mention of a freedom from religion. The First Amendment offers no support of a position that would outlaw religion just because it exists or offends those of a different religion or those who have no religion at all (agnostics or atheists).

No, from your post about WACO, .....may I ask you if you are advocating the rights of the "sovereign citizen" movement ???

 

[blueskies]

Then why therefore does the U.S. call ppl like at WACO and sovereign citizenship movement ......DOMESTIC TERRORIST?

The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is not clear, but an example might be the establishment of a state or federal church such as the British “Church of England.

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not violate or run contrary to "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.

In regards to Waco, this was a tragedy on multiple levels and can not be adequately addressed here but the government’s primary interest in the Branch Davidians, according to later documents, was the alleged possession of a cache of illegal arms and munitions on the site. Wether you accept this or not is a choice. What is clear is that when the ATF attempted to raid the Branch Davidian site in order to execute a search warrant there was a gun battle that killed five ATF agents and five Branch Davidians and injured an additional 16 agents.
At this point it became a 51 day siege and standoff between the Branch Davidians and the FBI (which had taken over from the ATF). It all ended in a fiery tragedy because people on both sides made some terrible decisions. However, the point is that after the initial gun battle the BD’s were no longer protected under the “Free Exercise Clause” due to violations of federal and state laws.

With freedoms come responsibilities.

The Sovereign Citizen Movement is
is primarily a loosely bound group of lands rights litigants, political activists, tax protesters, financial scheme promoters, and what might be termed “conspiracy theorists, who all claim to be answerable only to their particular interpretations of state and federal laws and insist they are not subject to any Federal or state government statutes or authority. Religious overtones are often added but this is primarily a anachronistic movement that rejects US laws and calls for open defiance of established law and so it is not covered or protected by the Free Exercise Clause in regards to freedom of religion.
At least that’s my limited understanding.

 

[D3vot3d2G0d]

The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is not clear, but an example might be the establishment of a state or federal church such as the British “Church of England.

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not violate or run contrary to "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.

In regards to Waco, this was a tragedy on multiple levels and can not be adequately addressed here but the government’s primary interest in the Branch Davidians, according to later documents, was the alleged possession of a cache of illegal arms and munitions on the site. Wether you accept this or not is a choice. What is clear is that when the ATF attempted to raid the Branch Davidian site in order to execute a search warrant there was a gun battle that killed five ATF agents and five Branch Davidians and injured an additional 16 agents.
At this point it became a 51 day siege and standoff between the Branch Davidians and the FBI (which had taken over from the ATF). It all ended in a fiery tragedy because people on both sides made some terrible decisions. However, the point is that after the initial gun battle the BD’s were no longer protected under the “Free Exercise Clause” due to violations of federal and state laws.

With freedoms come responsibilities.

The Sovereign Citizen Movement is
is primarily a loosely bound group of lands rights litigants, political activists, tax protesters, financial scheme promoters, and what might be termed “conspiracy theorists, who all claim to be answerable only to their particular interpretations of state and federal laws and insist they are not subject to any Federal or state government statutes or authority. Religious overtones are often added but this is primarily a anachronistic movement that rejects US laws and calls for open defiance of established law and so it is not covered or protected by the Free Exercise Clause in regards to freedom of religion.
At least that’s my limited understanding.

Yes this is the answers I also found online regarding such.
I am looking for a spiritual answer bc eventually here as we saw with the pandemic, the government did infringe on the rights of multiple religions.

Thanks for your input.

Just to be clear...........There is no mention of a freedom from religion. The First Amendment offers no support of a position that would outlaw religion just because it exists or offends those of a different religion or those who have no religion at all (agnostics or atheists).

No, from your post about WACO, .....may I ask you if you are advocating the rights of the "sovereign citizen" movement ???

No, I am not advocating for any group.
The word teaches we are not citizens of this world and that God is our sovereignty, correct ?

There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. The US constitution is the ultimate representation of sovereignty. The idea of sovereign citizenry is a representation of anarchy because it makes each citizen a de facto nation subject to no outside political influences. The sovereign citizen movement is a political movement, not a religious one, so the 1st Amendment religious protections don't apply. Any political movement that advocates or actively seeks the dissolution of the constitutionally governed United States is considered seditious and potentially terroristic.

I am not trying to ratify the Constitution THAT WAS FIRST INSTITUTED! Everyone knows however or should that it has been maserated by amendments, clauses and other bills.

 

[Dave F.]

It is my understanding of Waco, that the government was acting on reports from people inside the group that state and federal laws were being broken. Which is how they got the warrant to search the premises. Warren Jeffries was another cult leader who was breaking laws and got turned in by the people who had left the cult and went to the police. He was caught and arrested, and found guilty and is in prison at this time. The sad truth is that people want to hear feel good messages and tolerate wrong\false teachings because they don't take time to read the word and verify what they are hearing.

 

[Major]

The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is not clear, but an example might be the establishment of a state or federal church such as the British “Church of England.

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not violate or run contrary to "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.

In regards to Waco, this was a tragedy on multiple levels and can not be adequately addressed here but the government’s primary interest in the Branch Davidians, according to later documents, was the alleged possession of a cache of illegal arms and munitions on the site. Wether you accept this or not is a choice. What is clear is that when the ATF attempted to raid the Branch Davidian site in order to execute a search warrant there was a gun battle that killed five ATF agents and five Branch Davidians and injured an additional 16 agents.
At this point it became a 51 day siege and standoff between the Branch Davidians and the FBI (which had taken over from the ATF). It all ended in a fiery tragedy because people on both sides made some terrible decisions. However, the point is that after the initial gun battle the BD’s were no longer protected under the “Free Exercise Clause” due to violations of federal and state laws.

With freedoms come responsibilities.

The Sovereign Citizen Movement is
is primarily a loosely bound group of lands rights litigants, political activists, tax protesters, financial scheme promoters, and what might be termed “conspiracy theorists, who all claim to be answerable only to their particular interpretations of state and federal laws and insist they are not subject to any Federal or state government statutes or authority. Religious overtones are often added but this is primarily a anachronistic movement that rejects US laws and calls for open defiance of established law and so it is not covered or protected by the Free Exercise Clause in regards to freedom of religion.
At least that’s my limited understanding.

Which is exactly why I asked our sister the question!

 

[Major]

Yes this is the answers I also found online regarding such.
I am looking for a spiritual answer bc eventually here as we saw with the pandemic, the government did infringe on the rights of multiple religions.

Thanks for your input.

No, I am not advocating for any group.
The word teaches we are not citizens of this world and that God is our sovereignty, correct ?

I am not trying to ratify the Constitution THAT WAS FIRST INSTITUTED! Everyone knows however or should that it has been maserated by amendments, clauses and other bills.

You said.......
"I am looking for a spiritual answer bc eventually here as we saw with the pandemic, the government did infringe on the rights of multiple religions."

That is very confusing to me so I would like you to elaborate on your comment.

 

[Major]

Yes this is the answers I also found online regarding such.
I am looking for a spiritual answer bc eventually here as we saw with the pandemic, the government did infringe on the rights of multiple religions.

Thanks for your input.

No, I am not advocating for any group.
The word teaches we are not citizens of this world and that God is our sovereignty, correct ?

I am not trying to ratify the Constitution THAT WAS FIRST INSTITUTED! Everyone knows however or should that it has been maserated by amendments, clauses and other bills.

You said..........
"The word teaches we are not citizens of this world and that God is our sovereignty, correct ?"

YES and NO.

Because the law of the land says abortion is legal does not mean that morally you should have one!

Laws are made to protect people and sometimes those laws go against the Word of God but because of Freedom of Choice we can choose to obey God.

It should be remembered that the Word of God also says the HE puts up kings and HE brings down kings. The Jews told the Apostles that they could not to preach Jesus but the USA says that we can not be told not to preach Jesus!

 

[Major]

There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. The US constitution is the ultimate representation of sovereignty. The idea of sovereign citizenry is a representation of anarchy because it makes each citizen a de facto nation subject to no outside political influences. The sovereign citizen movement is a political movement, not a religious one, so the 1st Amendment religious protections don't apply. Any political movement that advocates or actively seeks the dissolution of the constitutionally governed United States is considered seditious and potentially terroristic.

Amen!

 

[bobinfaith]

my brain is going to explode from all the moral dilemmas posed in this thread
I am not God so how can I answer them? lol

The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not violate or run contrary to "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. With freedoms come responsibilities.
The Sovereign Citizen Movement is is primarily a loosely bound group of lands rights litigants, political activists, tax protesters, financial scheme promoters, and what might be termed “conspiracy theorists, who all claim to be answerable only to their particular interpretations of state and federal laws and insist they are not subject to any Federal or state government statutes or authority.

Yes this is the answers I also found online regarding such.
I am looking for a spiritual answer bc eventually here as we saw with the pandemic, the government did infringe on the rights of multiple religions.
Thanks for your input.

Hello D3v;

I had to laugh at Lanolin's post regarding moral dilemmas. She's right, we are not God. But we can still Ponder Questions and Look for Feedback. For some it can be a time to (listen) read and learn from our discussions.

From what I've read in this thread makes me think of three defined sovereignties, a sovereign citizen, a sovereign country and God's Sovereignty.

The first two have been defined in the posts and shown through history their imperfections and brokeness especially with the loss of respect for human life and dignity of character. However, God's Sovereignty is perfect and He will overcome the other two and refine those who walk with Christ daily. Praise His Wonderful Name!

We can still discuss it all and see where God comes in. What helps me, is despite my efforts as a man of God, husband and citizen of this broken city I live in, I keep asking over and over, where is God in this and what can I do to serve Him?

He's still over all, revealing His glory, His Sovereignty and ultimately His Will be done. Question is, where am I (with Him) despite these times?

In Hebrews 4:15-16, 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

God bless you, sister, and your personal walk with Christ.